The need to replace sysvinit was/is valid but systemd is truly a horrible piece of software. I would argue that systemd has (greatly) increased overall complexity and simply camouflaged it by moving most of the logic out of init scripts (unit files) and into program logic. And then added an http server and binary logs.<p>The original submission title, while editorialized, was pretty apt in my opinion. There really does seem to be a core group of people involved with the GNOME, RedHat, and systemd projects that seem to want to add features just for the sake of adding features, or perhaps so that they have something to claim ownership of. Gnome basically decided that text-basd configuration was too sane and opted for a mix of config files and the Windows Registry (gconf, dconf) which is a hilariously poor design choice. One-size-fits-all doesn't work unless you are Apple and your users will happily swallow your marketing BS and wait in line to buy a new iphone every 2 years.<p>The startup world is rife with the notions of "out with the old, in with the new" and "change for change's sake" so it's not surprising to me that a great deal of HN readers are Poettering apologists.<p>But to me, it sure seems like systemd is just a chance for Poettering and some others to pad their resumés, or else perhaps simply an ego trip. I honestly can't find anything about it that makes me go "hmm, that's a good feature that outweighs all the other negative parts".
> 8x ctrl + alt + del
> In systemd you press eight times Ctrl+Alt+Del to trigger reboot.<p>Like many of the other points, this one is plain incorrect.<p>> When the user presses Ctrl-Alt-Del more than 7x within 2s an
immediate reboot is triggered. This useful if shutdown is
hung and is unable to complete, to expedite the
operation. Note that this kind of reboot will still unmount
all file systems, and hence should not result in fsck being
run on next reboot.<p>Systemd is reboots your system quickly if you press it multiple times. Ctrl-Alt-Del still reboots your system.<p>> floppy group removed
> Because we know what is right to know about groups. This is just one example of the mass of group name dependencies systemd is adding. See sinit for how to not need such dependencies.<p>WTF? systemd is removing an obsolete group, not adding one.<p>> systemd-pm
> Power management is required on boot up.<p>You're right in this one and it's a GoodThing(tm). Hopefully we might see better hibernate and sleep support.<p>> factory reset
> Welcome to the Windows OEM world: Factory reset for Linux! Of course it is in your init process.<p>Yes, all features of Windows are BadThings(tm).
This article is inflammatory, in bad faith, and in many places blatantly incorrect.<p>I appreciate a lot of suckless work, but I don't see what this is adding.
This is a pretty bad list of issues with systemd. A large portion of criticisms in this list seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the author about what is actually in the systemd git repo. The git repo contains udev and other deamons in addition to the init process. As a result, most of the claims on this page about things going in to the init process are incorrect. If you look the actual release notes they are usually referencing a completely different daemon.<p>For example the line 'pid 1 does DNS' points to a release note about a separate daemon called 'systemd-resolved'.<p>edit: grammar
> * sysv removed <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/NEWS?id=2d1ca11270e66777c90a449096203afebc37ec9c#n1651" rel="nofollow">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/NEWS?id=2d1...</a><p>> We have won. Now remove all remains of our defeated enemy as fast as we can. As said in the beginning of the systemd crusade against the UNIX infidels: »You can patch it out.« It is no more there.<p>Are we really complaining that LSB script support has been moved out of PID1 to a separate binary? Wasn't one of the major point for critics that systemd has too much in PID1?
I have theory in my mind , I hope I can find an answer for it in HN.<p>I always wondered about how companies like Redhat and Samsung driving open source project . The way they pushed systemd to Linux community . The way Intel developer designed Gnome 3 for touch screen rather than Desktops .Is it true ? for example Company X by recruiting most of lead maintainer of project Y , They almost take control of its direction .<p>Is this feasible scenario ?
Is this is what happened around sysmted controversy ?
It seems like the argument being made here is that perhaps the systemd developers are afraid / unable to innovate in the kernel, which is in fact the overall system-wide daemon and parent to all processes.
> Führerbunker<p>You know that it is these kind of things that makes you look immature and discreditable no matter how valid your arguments are?<p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not judging. I understand that this is a certain kind of humor, but there are many who don't and who will judge you for it.
Unfortunately it looks like a lot of the links are broken. At least, I don't see the connection to what the first link about logind has to do with udev.
In this discussion on HN, I hope that people of both sides will permit everyone to have their own opinion on systemd without becoming as emotional or angry as the last time. Topics about systemd tend to get out of hand way too fast and often. In the past I've been blamed for saying I really dislike systemd but my arguments were not even read. The same thing the other way around: I've seen people who dislike systemd flame the people who do enjoy it. Let's just not repeat that kind of discussion; we can do better.<p>Getting emotional about something is not always a bad thing, IMO. But let's just respect that different people hold different opinions, especially with something as controversial as systemd. Let's just aim at being constructive here.
The noble knights of UNIX lore and traditions are at it again. Lo and behold! Armed with the arcane power of ancient spaghetti code shell scripts and logical fallacies, they grep their way through enemy lines to banish the dreaded modernity once and for all.